|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 10:58 am: | 
|
This may sound like fantasy , but I am 100% genuine.
For the past 4 weeks I have been putting together a report on what is literally the biggest clue of all time to come out of Jack the Ripper in 117 years.I will give a brief summary how I came about it.
I have been into JtR and been frequenting this website for about a year now.I follow most threads of interst and sometimes post a message.Alot of people have been annalysing the victims pictures, especially Mary Kelly's, with thier own theories. People have see the letters FM,hart, numbers, marks , defence wounds, and commenting on the position of the victims body in relation to the room,and other topics. But in reality nothing that could bring the case to life after 117 years.
I got to the stage where I chalanged myself to look at every photo from every perspective to find the imposible (not previously seen).I spent 12 hours total.Given the age, and the faded colour, I knew it would be like finding a needle in a haystack - I thought my odds were nil, but did it anyway.Seconds away from concluding my search, I was hit by a lighting bolt.A section of the victim, which had appeared in several posts on other topics, had the unbelievable clue. I knew instantly that it was from the killer and that I had found the needle in the haystack.
All I can say is this. You can look at the section forever and not see it. But once you pick it up it is as clear as daylight.I knew I had my work in front of me now to deliver this the best way I could.So I have consulted two specialists who helped me with it. Using computer enhancement and colouring techniques, they both told me it was done by the hand of man. BINGO. I knew instantly what I had.
WHY IS IT THE BEST CLUE EVER TO COME OUT OF THIS CASE?
From all I have learnt on this case, there is only one piece of evidence that is definatly from the killer. A piece of Katherine Eddow's apron found on Glouston St. The chalk message, ripper letters, Maybrick diaries, paintings, authors oppinions, are all speculation only. Only the apron piece is 100% certian.
Given that this is on the victim, it is 100% from the killer.It gives a direct insight into his mind, and a possible signature that could be matched with a suspect. Given this - it is literally the biggest clue in 117 years.
QUESTION: I was initially going to post it on this website. However, I realised that authors are still writing books and spending millions on searching for evidence. I was thinking of sending the report to a few agents first. Especially Patricia Cornwell's agent for her review to come out next year. I want to make sure 100% that it cant be used or stolen in any way when I do this. What copywriting do I have to do to 100% gaurd my report. I want 100% legal protection. If anyone can assist me I would be greatful.
My Email adress is sryan13@vtown.com.au. |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Stuart,
A lot of people think they have found the biggest clue of all time or have solved the case and are disappointed by the lackluster response they receive. I hope that's not the case with you, but don't be surprised if everyone is not as convinced that you have indeed found the bestest clue in the whole wide world.
To answer your copyright questions, just posting it here under your name gives you copyright. I am not sure what you want the copyright for, if it is just to ensure that you get credit whenever the thing is mentioned, that is sufficient, if you want to make money off it, fat chance. If you want a more professional display, you could email Stephen Ryder and ask him to post it in the dissertations section where it will be kept. Or if you want a printing with binding, you could email Dan Norder and ask that it be printed in Ripper Notes.
Whatever it is, good luck.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 870
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Well, by whatever means this "clue" is made public, we shalln't be able to judge until it is published in some form.
I can't wait.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 886
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart-
There's a lot of confusion on what copyright covers.
Copyright typically covers images and text (and other things like music, computer code, etc. that aren't really relevant here.) You said you had enhancements and color adjustments done on a photo... those are automatically copyrighted by whoever did them as soon as they were done, so you already have protection on those.
Copyright does not cover information or ideas, however. So if someone else should happen along and come to the same conclusion as you and publish it first, you are out of luck.
A lot of people think that holding back on releasing info will somehow increase their ownership of it when it doesn't really ever effect the info, facts, opinions, etc. itself. Your best protection is to get it published so everyone know you were first. Then you have protection of your ideas based upon the concept of plagiarism and protection of the text you used to explain it based upon copyright.
I am a bit skeptical of any claims to having found clues in photos, but if you want to send it along to me -- either (automatically copyrighted when you write it) completed draft of letter or article or just the (already copyrighted) image -- for possible publication in the October issue of Ripper Notes, I'll be glad to look at it and let you know what I think. You can contact me at the email link in my signature or the contact link on my website.
And, as Ally suggests, you can also send it to Stephen for his consideration or just take the plunge and post it here.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:16 am: |
|
Thanks for your responses.
I already knew before putting it together, I would be greeted with scepticism.Everything connected to this case, ripper letters, The Maybrick diary, Sickert paintings, secret files ect ect ect, has been totally dismantled by those with an interest in the case. I have seen it all.
I knew as soon as I saw it I has one goal in mind.To get all the technacal aspects of it thoroughly annalysed and checked by a specialist.Otherwise I knew it may have been an uphill battle for me.With the work of specialists, I got every aspect of it measured for symmetry, correctness, position and every small technical detail. They confirmed it was 100% genuine to me. I told them of the enormous wieght this clue holds and how in the hell am I going to present it to the wolves, so they told me this.
" They can do no more than confirm the technical aspects of it as genuine. Any similar specialist in the world would simply confirm the same data they have come up with."
I can do no more than this. This is the zenith of my powers to persuade it's genuiness.I can do no more.
One thing I will say is this. I know the case has a history of people getting thier hopes up and being let down. I'll give you my word , for what it's worth - This one delivers. You wont be let down again.
ALLY: If I want to make money - fat chance. Pat Cornwell spent 6 million dollars buying paintings and came up with nothing. Others have spent large amounts on nothing. This is something REAL. Although my motivations are a genuine interest in the case, am I wrong to think if anything could come of it, than it might have actual value?
Thanks again - Stuart.
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Hello Stuart.
Roughly what size an area on the photograph are we talking about?
From what source does your image come?
Kane |
Harlan Stevenson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Hi,
Just imagine Jesus got married to a woman...let's call her Mary...and after He was crucified, a pregnant Miss Mary escaped to France and established a direct blood lineage to her husband.
Sound familiar?
Yes it's from The Da Vinci Code...or was it from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail? Either way, Stuart, it's trebles all round for some American lawyers.
As Dan said, and Mr. Norder agreed (!)...you can't copyright ideas. And, I don't think that the photograph is even copyrighted...although HMSO may disagree.
So long,
Harlan |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Stuart,
I think you'll find enough witnesses/allies on this message board to back you up in any event.
Like Phil, and many others, I'm intrigued at the prospect.
All the best.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Hi stuart,
I am intriqued I have spent years looking at victims photographs desperately looking for clues, i have spotted a possible Fm, a possible cross on the partition, the posibility of Kelly wearing elastic on her right leg [ hold-up stocking], but you seem to have outwitted even the most observant and imaginative eye. i commend you if you have.
However this subject is so commercial. and claims to see new evidence can be purely money orientated, so with respect i can only wait in anticipation with some distrust.
Regards Richard. |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Stuart,
As you say, the piece of apron is perhaps the only legitimate clue, but it doesn't tell us much, and really only adds to speculation. Was it a souvenir that he dropped? Was it a piece torn off in a struggle? Was it used to clean his blade? Was it placed by the chalk message for a reason, or was it just coincidence. Really, all that clue has done is create more questions. If your clue actually clears up anything about the case, you will have many ripper fans (not the best word perhaps) that will be ready to support you, provided the clue is valid. If you need someone to edit your report, I am handy at that sort of thing. If you need a British/English speaker that uses unnecessary letters like the "o" in colour, or your writing necessitates the use of colloquialisms that a Yank may not be familiar with, I'm sure someone out here will help you out. It really is important to make a report professional looking by using proper grammar and spelling.
All the best,
Mike the Mauler
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
Stuart,
Most people here are assuming that the "clue" you claim to have found,is one which will reveal the Identity of the murderer.
However,you haven't actually said exactly what it is that the clue reveals,proves or disproves.
Whatever the connection,direct or indirect,it is YOUR connection and based on YOUR interpretation of what you have found and how it relates to the case.
If your "clue" is in the form of an object,then that will be open to interpretation as to what the object is.The photographs from 1888 are all of fairly low resolution.You cannot possibly extract details which were never captured by the cameras and the limitations of the technology at the time.No amount of enhancement will reveal details that simply aren't there.
More than once I have seen people claiming to have spotted "Never before seen" objects in the various photographs and they have turned out to be nothing more than distortions caused by artefacts introduced by the image compression process used.
If your discovery is in the form of a message of some kind,then it would have to be a either a sentence or partial sentence if you expect to be taken seriously.
Initials,names and single words have all been "seen" in the Kelly photograph and most of us have gone through several barrels of salt!
Kane |
Anne Law Student
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Sorry butI kind of feel I should be a little suspicious, your post is sincere but very naive. I'm pleased you've discovered something that hints at an identity, but I think you vastly over value your contribution to the case. Surely, this is about a case file, not a print on a photo. It's just that too many people are keen to make their names.
If you have found some type of identity mark, it may be a) planted b) superimposed c) a simple accident on an old photo d) interesting enough but reveal little about the case.
Cornwell will tell you as much, she is no fool when it comes to basic forensic. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 260
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
I have some experience in interpreting photographs, and the main thing here is that unless at least a paper copy of the original photos have been used to obtain these "results", going any further with digital copies proves nothing whatsoever.
Kane is of course absolutely right in his assessment that artefacts from digital rendering can, and will, create havoc when trying to enhance or magnify the image.
The only information that is "real", is the (digital!) information in the original pixels of the negative or paper copy. Beyond that resolution everything else is really not there.
So, whatever you have found, Stuart, must be rather large to be there at all. If it's only in a blow up from a digital copy, I'm afraid what you see are in fact not at all from the original scene.
I'm not saying this to pour cold water in your blood, but to give you advice to look at the original (book prints are also a no-no) for confirmation of your theory. If it's still there (and I sincerely hope it is!), then you are on to something!
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
"Photography gives us nothing but uncertain results, our eye cannot do anything but provide us with ones that are even more coarse and more imperfect. We do not all see in the same way, and moreover, it must be noted that we are inclined to see how we want to see and that often, even if in good faith, we end up deceiving ourselves."
Dalifol
Cheers,
Robert
The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
Stuart,
I'm sorry to be late in responding to your exciting news. I am having extensive back surgery done on the 30th Sept. So I haven't been keeping up very often with the board. Anyway...
I hope you have found something that we all have missed. I started a thread on "What are we missing?" several months ago. Could you have found it?!!!
Hope that you have found that vital piece...
Cheers,
Carolyn |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 880
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 3:21 am: |
|
Coming back to this thread after a break, gave me pause:
It's quite funny really. A poster makes a totally unsubstantiated claim, and everyone tries to be terribly supportive and not kill off a potential "golden goose".
But the poster has told us NOTHING. The actual difference between this thread anda similar current SPOOF thread is very narrow. It is nice to see people being warm and not dismissive - but once again, I do question whether our critical faculties should not be brought into play more strongly.
Or are we all so desperate for new material to discuss that we will welcome any potential new light - or even the promise of it. The original poster has given not a shred of evidence that he REALLY has anything, or even indicated the nature of the clue.
Why? it seems because he wants to make money from this. Well, the idea or evidence itself won't make him money - he'll have to write a book first, and attract a publisher. Be ready for a long wait.
I continue to welcome Stuart's enthusiasm and initiative (if there is anything serious to back it up) but I don't think we should honour it, or waste any more time on it, unless and until further details emerge.
Then it can be evaluated on its merits (which given the cautions already expressed by others, are probably few).
As usual, Cassandra at the feast,
Phil |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Phil,
There is a a lot to be said re. your remarks, but at least for my part I am always hopeful for something new to come to light on this case. I would hate to "shoot" someone down for trying, if they really have something they are willing to share, and not just to make money.
It is true we have NOTHING, I am not passing any judgement on the merit of the "find" till there is some thing to judge. If this is a hoax or a joke, then yes, I will be very sorry I have wasted my time in responding.
Also, I feel, as you have stated, that WE are desperate for new material to discuss, and if this "find" gives us something more to discuss, or at least something different it might turn out to be interesting.
Carolyn 
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 884
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
I agree entirely carolyn - and I my intention was not to "knock" the original poster. But how far does one go, how long does one tolerate hints and teases, without any indication of what this is about?
I am, myself, quite sceptical about the "quick fix" solution - I don't doubt that it is possible that there exists somewhere a cache of irrefutable evidence pointing to a suspect - but frankly I do not expect it to materiaklise. We saw recently the very fragile nature of the so-called "proof" advanced in regard to a Welsh Doctor.
I would be much less surprised if a sudden breakthrough were made by researches carried out by a Chris Scott or an AP.
But look at what we have to accept if we are to take seriously a "clue" of such magnitude apparently staring us in the face from a photograph.
We have seen this before, as the proposer says.
But more - there are very few photos specifically associated with the Ripper crimes. They could probably be numbered on the fingers of two hands!! Leaving aside the morgue pics of Nichols, Chapman and Stride which essential are face shots we have fewer - and the poster specifies bodtparts - so that narrows it still further.
So we have to assume that a clear clue is depicted in one - that the actual evidence (not photographic) was ignored or overlooked by the police at the time, on the scene and in context (not to mention in colur).
We have to assume that the clue is not some trick of the method of replication or some mark on the negative, or a result of the passage of time. The poster does not say that he was looking at an original print, but the context suggests he was looking at reproductions on the net or in a book - this furthe reduces the chances of us being presented with anything but the visual equivalent of meaningless anagrams, or letters perceived in bloodsmears.
We have also, I think, got to assume that it is not some "game" - the way the body is laid out, or the arrangement of the furniture to form a pentangle.
All this perceived by staring at something for 12 hours (enough, I think, to engender hallucination in anything!!
But for all that, I await the "solution" with some interest though low expectations. I doubt though whether the hints and teases will be worth it.
Phil |
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 27
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
hi all,
Test e-mail. Sorry Guys. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
Phil,
Again, you are probably right. God forbid we end up with an another diary nightmare. Stuart said he had had it looked at by specialists, gee where have we heard that one before? Where has it gotten us?
I just try to keep an open mind when it comes to new information on the case. I guess I am still just a hopeless optimist!
As far as how far do we go, and how long do we tolerate hints and teases, I seem to remember an other poster on the board that kept us hanging for quite awhile before he presented us with his theory. Let's not go THERE again. 
Cheers
Carolyn
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
But it was fun while it lasted.  |
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi all,
Sorry about the previous message. It has been a while since I have posted anything, and I needed to check my password.
Anyway. My interest being rekindled slightly, I decided to throw some ideas into the furore about Stuart's 100% clue.
1)It has to be a photo of a victim. Correct??
2)In the way Stuart describes his clue, we are left with only two possibilities:
a. Kate Eddowes mortuary photo.
b. Mary Kelly deathbed photo.
3)Due to the quality of all existing photos of (a.) we can, with certainty rule these out.This leaves us with, again, the Kelly deathbed photo.
4) Now to be manmade, and upon the victim, we need to be looking at Kelly's apparell, probably most in particular, her stocking/sock.
5) It is strange that Stuart uses the word BINGO to announce his confirmed, tried and tested clue. I'll leave this up to you guy's to figure out. Or maybe Stuart can just enlighten you all.
'Til later,
Jfripper |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 902
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Hope springs eternal. You know that I'm pretty much a skeptic for anything and everything here, but I also believe if we are too closed to claims of new evidence that at some point we may scare of legitimately new and useful evidence when it does appear.
Of course that means we have to dig through a thousand nonsense claims for every real new clue, but that's just how things go.
Of course it would be helpful if people just posted their ideas right away instead of trying to sell it as the most important thing to the field forever but without giving useful details. How many times have we been through that before here? the one we ended up waiting the longest time for (I'm sure many know what I mean here) ended up being the most pathetic of them all.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 363
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Stuart seems to have vanished. I think the Royal Family must have gotten hold of him and done some brain surgery.
Stan |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Dan...
Do you mean the not-so-original imitator to Paley's theory of Barnett-as-Ripper-murdering-prostitutes-to-coerce-Kelly-to-cease-her-turning-tricks? Only with a twist...that blackmailing a Jew to turn state's evidence to get another Jew out of the house was the aim of the crimes ?
Do I get a free sub to R.N. if I guessed the right answer ?
How
1001 posts and I'm not an admiral yet...this sucks. |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 350
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Sorry, but I'm going to jump on the negative bandwagon here.
I agree with Phil's earlier post - an unregistered guest starts up a thread claiming that he has uncovered the biggest clue ever (How many times have we heard that one before!?), but doesn't give anything away other than it is a mark on one of the victims.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a breakthrough like this too in the case, and I'm not saying Stuart is lying, but really, come on guys, what's the probability of something like that being genuine?
As it's already been said, the only 2 possible photos this could be on is Catherine Eddowes' mortuary photo, or Mary Kelly's on-site photo.
We are dealing with poor quality photos from the 19th century here - not enhanced, high-quality images.
Besides that, both of those photos, especially that of Mary Kelly's, has been scanned, magnified, blown-up, etc, for clues countless times before. Surely someone would have picked up on whatever this mark is supposed to be before.
Paul Feldman, in his book "Jack The Ripper: The Final Chapter" described in great detail how he did very thorough checks through Mary Kelly's photos for clues - he did come up with the "FM", after all!
Where's the mention of this other clue on the actual body? There isn't one.
And there are many others who have done similar checks.
The photo of Catherine Eddowes in the mortuary is the same - it's been checked over time and time again, the nicks on her face have been discussed as potential clues, etc....nothing more there, either. Unless, of course, Stuart has managed to interpret some symbol or word from the markings, but I think that's highly unlikely - and we already know about those, anyway!
Anyway, like everyone else, I think it would be great if Stuart did indeed find a genuine, clear clue from one of the photos, but put it this way:
I'll believe this new 'evidence' when I see it.
Somehow, I don't think I will.
Regards,
Adam. 
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
I found the Holy Grail last week but I'm not going to let you see it. |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Jfripper
WOW !! You are right about Stuart! I was going crazy checking the photos out. I read your post about Mary's stocking. I knew about the "M" on her leg, but always thought the marks right below the garter were just blood spots. So I looked with a magnifyer and it looked like it could be some kind of writing. I wear glasses and couldn't make it out. But my son has 20/15 Vision and just for the heck of it, I called him into the room and asked him if he could read anything on the leg beside the obvious "M". He answered me in about 2 seconds. "PIGGY" !! Could this be Maybrick mixing up BUNNY with Sarah Robertson's PIGGY name. This is really wierd. I'm going to get the kids together tomorrow. They are good with the scanner. Maybe they can get a better image.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 376
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
If we think we can see it on a worn photo, don't you think police and doctors who were actually there wouldn't have seen it?
Stan |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Stanley
I started a new thread for this subject. It is in the Victim's section....Mary Jane Kelly...Letters on Mary Kelly's leg. Go there and get the update, because my neighbor was looking at the photo and she saw 3 more letters all the way up at the knee. I am joing Casebook soon. This is a Great Site. My Son used this site last year to do a Ripper Report for school
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Let me see if I have this correct.
There is an FM at the back of the bed on the wall in letters at least a foot high.
The word 'Piggy' is carved/written on her leg/stocking.
I like to think I'm a rational human being.Are people asking me to believe that EVERYONE back in 1888 on that awful day totally and utterly missed these two not insignificant things?
I mean really - come on! The room was'nt big enough to swing a cat in for goodness sake.
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:25 am: |
|
Hi all,
I have not dissapeared. I am sending the image to a few people via Email first, and will post it so be patient.The first one to see it was Dan Norder. He denounced the image and went against everything the artist, whose help I sought, told me. So I have been left in the middle here, and require more oppinions, which I am seeking. The question is whether you go along with what a qualified person states, or an unqualified person. Once Tom Wescot gives me his view, I will put it together for you to look at. I guess if enough qualified oppinions say no, I will have to retract my claim.
Stuart. |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Stanley
There must have been so much blood and mess in that room, the shock of seeing this body in that condition probably is the reason for that.
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 928
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Stuart - who exactly is "qualified" in a case such as you propose. We are talking about an image on a reproduced photograph?
I frankly don't see what an "artist" can have told you that has any bearing.
If you want expert opinion then surely your reference should be to qualified interpreters of photographs (in a forensic sense0 or experts in photography (ie what can happen between negative and print etc); or experienced students of the Ripper case.
But an artist!!
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 904
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
I find it rather poor form to ask me to not discuss your "clue" in public and then to come along and insult my conclusions. The line "The question is whether you go along with what a qualified person states, or an unqualified person." is just completely out there, as you have not given any sort of reason to think that the "artist" you consulted had any qualifications. To the contrary, the bizarre things being said strongly indicated no real expertise whatsoever.
Hi Eddie,
Well, the "shock" conveniently didn't prevent multiple police officers and doctors from making reports of other items of much less importance, so I find that argument pretty weak. I can't imagine any official overlooking something as obvious as writing on a victim's leg when they were desperate for clues. To think that not just one person would be too shocked to report it but every single last one of them is asking way too much.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 375
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Stuart,
Might I suggest you seek the opinion of a professional photographer?
I mean, apart from me (I used to work as an instructor on photographic techniques in the Norwegian armed forces...but that seems like ages ago)
And, I´m not talking about someone working in a photo shop. A real old fashioned photographer from the time when they actually sullied their hands with real chemicals and stuff.
What is important here is to study ALL the available copies of the picture in question. The one in the book is, quite frankly, not very good as a reference.
Keep in mind that the publishers have done all sorts of things with the picture to make the FM stand out! (And even so it´s pretty lame IMO)
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hello punters,
I have posted the report on the message boards , on the Mary Kelly thread, titled "The Mystery image".So you will have to go over there to see it. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Just out of curiosity...
Who owns the actual original photo and what sort of physical size is it?
Mr P |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hello punters,
I have posted the report on the message boards , on the Mary Kelly thread, titled "The Mystery image".So you will have to go over there to see it. |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hello punters,
I have posted the report on the message boards , on the Mary Kelly thread, titled "The Mystery image".So you will have to go over there to see it. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 760
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Stuart,
I am one of those old-fashioned photographers Helge mentioned (I suspect the stench of developer and fixer still lingers about me) and all I can say is that lacking the original glass plate negative it makes no difference what you "see" in a second, third . . . nth generation image. A photo that has been through as many permutations as has the Kelly photograph as printed in a book is useless for detecting hiterto hidden sub-images. In fact, rather than find "clues" in a photo reprinted in a book you would achieve must greater fame (and maybe even some fortune depending on how you gained possession) by finding the original negative.
Sorry.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Eddie Derrico
Police Constable
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Mr P.
I think the original photo is in one of the Museums.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 105
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:04 am: |
|
Don,
Well said! Now I owe you a 2nd beer.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 944
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:09 am: |
|
I think the original photo is in one of the Museums.
I love precision!! Pretty easy to find then.
Phil
|
Eddie Derrico
Police Constable
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Phil,
Ha, ha. Sorry. I pretty sure I read somewhere that it is in the Black Museum.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 400
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Don,
Hoped you would say that!
And of course, I agree.
What is also really telling is the fact that these letters do not show up equally in all the versions of the photograph.
Guys and gals, about the original:
From The Complete Jack the Ripper, Donald Rumbelow, 1975, pp. 146-147:--
Several years ago, through the permission of the Commissioner of the City Police, I was able to place in the Eddowes and Kelly file [at New Scotland Yard] copies of the original photographs which were in their possession and to deposit similar sets with the Black Museum and Bow Street Historical Museum.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 950
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
But Don's point was that for any reliability we need the glass plate neagative.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 401
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Yes, exactly, Phil. And if you read what I quote here, the original negative is nowhere to be found, the "original" is a paper copy, and what is in the museum is a copy. That was my point, although I did not think I needed to say that.
But since we don't have the negative, the least we must accept in a "serious" investigation on details on one of the copies is to make sure those details are in all the copies existant.
Because if they are not, chances are they are not on the negative. And the rendering in the book is not exactly what we should be working with here, do you agree?
If those letters can only be seen in the "Diary", and nowhere else, then we don't really need the negative to determine that those letters are NOT "real".
To determine if the letters ARE "real" with certainty, THEN we need the original negative.
Isn't that so, Don?
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 29, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 402
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
Just to add to what I just said.
Even if the "letters" (and I use the term loosely) could be found on the negative, I would still call them pareidolia.
Because to me, it's so obvious that it is.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Eddie Derrico
Police Constable
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Phil
Right. It would have to be examined by an expert.
I did read on another thread that if there were any kind of message or initials, the Police would probably hold it back because of the panic of the people living in the area. Anyone with the initials would probably be attacked by a crowd of lynchers.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 762
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Helge, Phil et al.,
Yes, certainly having the negative would be a way to start, though even a first generation direct print would be better than what we have. Of course, even the negative could be full of imperfections and not just from wear but also deriving from the original emulsion coating and development.
In this case, though, I feel it goes much deeper than "visual static" arising from multiple reproductions. That is, the "image" might well still be there on the negative, but that is inherent in using a two-dimensional medium to represent a three-dimensional object from a fixed perspective.
The "image" is produced by light and shadow rendered on a plane surface. If the light source had been moved just a fraction in any direction when the picture had been taken and I am confident the "face and beast" would disappear. Some might well see some new sub-images in that photograph and others would still see nothing.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 915
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Hi Eddie,
Yes, had their been initials on the scene the police would have not told the public about them, but they most certainly would have listed them in their own police notes and investigated them. They weren't just not annonced in public but also not in the police records, meaning it's extremely unlikely any were actually there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Hi to all, and I hope everyone is keeping well.
Regarding all this sturm und drang (sorry about the missing umlauts), all I can do is ask if anyone else is reminded a bit of the film BLOWUP??????? If not, check it out. Antonioni and David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave...pure 60's.......but well worth a watch in relation to this situation, this case, and ALL it's aspects.
Keep digging, expanding and pixelising (is that a real word?), and I daresay we all could find the Ripper's signature engraved on Mary's teeth.
Large grains of salt are available as you exit the theatre, folks, but a newbie finding something we all missed would be quite a coup, right? More power to whomever does it!
Hope to see everyone in Brighton, and then in Baltimore next April.
Cheers,
Judy
http://www.casebook.org/2006 |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 705
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
What I was trying to get across is that one can easily find images. I see nothing "less corect" about, for example, the placements of arms, legs, torso, and head for the "jumping man". Also, how one interprets your "swan" could easily be argued to be a "snake". In the orginal, what you call the "beasts teeth" looks more like a wavy line, like a sheet blowing in the wind, and just beside that one could imagin seeing someone bending down and shaking that sheet over a basin. This all looks very "correct", but that is just because our brain works to try and extract information about what is out there. Our visual system often gets very improverished information, so it fills in details, and we percieve things in randomness.
Again, I attach for your comparison a side by side view of the original and these alternatives, including a few more (a mushroom by the snake, and the Christmas tree I mentioned earlier).
- Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 434
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I think I see one of the Mario Brothers!
Stan |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:36 am: |
|
Jeff
Thanks for those further fascinating images. I found the Christmas tree in particular very clear.
But isn't Christmas starting in early November more of a modern phenomenon?
Chris Phillips
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
